The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-03-29

designated by one or both Of the parties. the
clerk shall print those parts only; and the court
will consider nothing but those parts of the rec
ord and the errors so stated. Ii, at the hearing,
it shall appear that any material part of the
record has not been printed, the writ of error or
appeal may be dismissed, such other order
m ade as the circumstances may appear to the
court to require. If the defendant in error, or
appellee. shall have caused unnecessary parts of
the record to be printed. such order as to costs
may be made as the court shall think proper"
A decision was rendered by the United Statee
Supreme Court, to-day, in the insoivent bank
case of Alonzo Richmond, Charles Comstock
and others against Agnes F. Irons and Andrew
FL. Foskett, executor and executrix Of James
Irons, deceased. and others; appeal from the
United States Circuit Court for the Northern
district of Illinois. This was suit to enforce
the personal liability of the stockholders for the
debts of the insolvent Manufacturers National
Bank of Chicago. master, appointed by the
court below to ascertain the amounts of the
debts and assets of the bank, reported, on the
25th day of May, 1886, that the Indebtedness Of
the bank at that time $346, 733; that 500, Sac
should be added to that for the expenses Of the
receivership-making total of $4l6, 079-aud
that the necessary assessment upon the stock
holders to pay said indebtedness was 83 per
cent on the capital stock of 5000 600. Many ex-
ceptions were made to the masters report, but
they were all overruled, and decree was en-.
tered against each stockhoder, severally, for the
amount computed to be due from him according
to the amount of his stock. From this decree
Richmond, Comstock, and others, appealed. This
court HOLDS
First-That the action of the Circuit Court iu
permitting amendments to the original plead.
ings is justified by the rules on that subject
stated by this court in the case of Neale VS..
Neale 70 Wallace. II and in The Tremolo Patent
t23 Wallace, 5l8), etc.
Second-That the statute of limitations. even
If applicable as bar to this proceeding. ceased
to run against the creditors Of the bank entitled
to the benef of the decree from the time when
the amended bill was filed, in October, 1876
| 1t had not then taken effect.
Thlrc-Ihat the obligation OF deceased
| stockholder survives as against his personal
representatives
Fourth-That Comstock is liable on stock sold
| by him in good faith hut not transferred on the
| banks BOOKS well as stock sold with
| knowledge of the banks insolvency
| Fifth-That the stockholders are by law ex-
onerated from the obligation to contribute to the
payment of all claims in class D, amounting in
| the aggregate to $lS5, ,OcQ.
| Sixth-That the creditors are entitled to in
terest on the debts of the bank as against the
| stockholders
| Seventh-That the stockholders are not bound
| to contribute, as debt due from the bank or
themselves, to a fund for the payment of the ex-
| penses of the receivership
| The decree of the Circuit Court, in so far as it
is inconsistent with the foregoing decision, is
| reversed and the cause remanded with directions
| to proceed therein as justice and equity may
| require in conformity with this opinion OpinioB
| by Justice Matthews.
| A decision was also rendered by the court to.
| day in the Virginia coupon tax case of Villa u
L. Royal against the State of Virginia This s
an appeal from judgment pronounced tA-ainst
| Royal by the Supreme Court of Appeals of Vir-
einia, on the 25th of February last, in case in
| which he was prosecuted by the State for prac.
| ticing his profession as a lawyer without
| license after having tendefed the said States
coupons in payment Of his license tax. This
| court holds that the present case cannot be As-
| tncushed in principle from that of Rovall vs.
Virginia GIG, U. S.. 572). aud on that authority
| the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals
| of Virginia is reversed and the cause remanded,
| with directions to allow the writ of error wAic6
| was prayed for Opinion by Chief Justice Waite
decision was also rendered IN case No Z,
origina! ex parte: George NJ. Balm, jr., petit
/ tiCner. This court decided that inasmnch al the
Indictment upon which Balm was tried in the
court below was changed after it came from the
grand jury, it was not the indictment of that
grand jury within the meaning of the Consti-
tuition. and the court had not the right to try
and sentence him upon it. The prisoner is
therefore entitled to a writ of habeas corpus
and it is granted. Opinion by Justice r Mi,,sr
Balm was cashier of the Exchange Bank of Nor
folk Va, and was indicted for making false
report or statement as to the condition of that
! bank. He tried. found guilty, and sen
| fenced to five years imprisonment
A decision was also rendered in the long
standing Of the United StateS against John
| Paul Jones, administrator of George Nc cDougak
appeal from the Court of Claims This suit had
its origin in a contract entered into April g. 1852,
between p NJ Wozensraft. United States
Indian agent in California and George Me DVu.
gall, to supply certain Indians with 650,0OO
pounds Of beef The beef was duly furnished,
and Indian Agent Wozencraft gave the con-
tractor, McDougal drafts on the cecretary Of
the Interior amounting in the aggregate to $SI..
250 The Interior Department regarded the corA
tract as unauthorized and illegal and refused m
honor the drafts. On Dec. 1, 1884. the Secre.
tary referred the to the Court of Claims
under the provisions of Section 1883 of the Re.
vised Statutes. and the court gave ud;ment in
favor of the appellee for $sl $50. disaiowine the
sum of 800 claimed in addition to the iudg-
ment, under the terms of the contract. From
this Judgment both parties appealed. the gov;
eminent insisting that the claimant ought Hot
to recover anything while the latter min tainod
that he ought to have had judgment for $l9 500
more This court holds that the contract OF
April 5. 1862 upon which this claim is based.
imposed no legal obligation upon the United
States. and that the judgment of the court Of
claims in favor of McDougalrs administrator
was erroneous. The judgment is therefore rel
versed. and the case remanded, with directiona
to dismiss the petition Opinion by Justicd
Harlan.